Hi.
I intend to package all the dummy packages we have been talking about.
They match the packages that changed its name in the great X
reorganization.
My rationale for creating these packages is the following:
*) Since dselect's default behaviour is to upgrade everything, most people
*will* expect the old X packages to be updated automatically. Since the
packages changed their names, dselect does not do what it is expected to
do, so these packages will fill the gap between the old and the new
packages.
*) We have discussed enough, it's time to do something positive so that
this issue is solved as soon as possible.
I'm open to all these type of objections, which I order according to
their likelihood:
* (From Branden Robinson) "Ok, don't worry, I think I should be the one to
do it, since I'm the X maintainer".
* (From Branden Robinson) "Ok, I will rename the X packages back, so that
a hamm user will never notice that these packages had a different name
during the frozen stage of slink. I will just postpone the renaming
until it is supported by the packaging system appropiately".
* (From Ian Jackson) "Ok, I used the time machine :-) and changed the
past, now hamm's dpkg allows package renaming just by using the new
`Alias:' field, so it may already be used in all the packages in slink
needing it".
I would consider the following objections not acceptable:
[ I include the reasons for which I consider them unacceptable ]
* "You should not create them because they are useless".
Not true, since lot of people expect the old packages to be upgraded by
the new ones automatically, these packages are exactly which is needed
(with existing tools) so that the upgrade is done automatically.
* "Don't do it, they are ugly".
Having an ugly thing does not mean it may not be useful as well.
Functionality is more important than aesthetics.
* "Trying to emulate dselect's behaviour (by forcing the upgrade of all
the packages) is wrong".
If "upgrade everything" is not what dselect should do, what is it
supposed to do, then? Where is the bug against dselect for its
"wrong" behaviour?
* "There should be some better way".
Fine. Which one?
Thanks.
--
"88d678e67ef37f67fb75dd7e51f24816" (a truly random sig)